State panel rejects Navy sonar training plan

March 8, 2013

Updated Aug. 21, 2013 1:17 p.m.

1 of 4

Demonstrators hold signs stating their position against Navy training exercises off the California coast during a California Coastal Commission meeting Friday in San Diego. LENNY IGNELZI, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

1 of 4

The Navy acknowledges sonar may harm marine mammals but says it already takes steps to protect whales. FILE: THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

1 of 4

Kurt Gross of the U.S. Navy works in the command and control room during an active sonar exercise on board the USS Howard off the coast of Hawaii in 2008. The Navy acknowledges sonar may harm marine mammals but says it already takes steps to protect whales. FILE: HUGH E. GENTRY, ASSOCIATED PRESS

1 of 4

In this May 28, 2008, file photo, the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Howard sails off the coast of Hawaii during sonar exercises. FILE: HUGH E. GENTRY, AP

Demonstrators hold signs stating their position against Navy training exercises off the California coast during a California Coastal Commission meeting Friday in San Diego. LENNY IGNELZI, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A state panel voted Friday to reject the U.S. Navy's plan for offshore training, including the use of sonar that could harm whales.

The vote could set the stage for more conflict between the California Coastal Commission and the Navy. A similar disagreement led to a legal clash in 2008, resolved only after intervention by the president and, later, the Supreme Court.

At a meeting in San Diego, the California Coastal Commission voted unanimously against the Navy's training plan for 2014 to 2019, saying commissioners did not have enough information to determine whether whales and other sea mammals would be harmed.

"I think there are tremendous gaps in the information the Navy has provided," Commissioner Dayna Bochco said. "I'd like to have questions answered. I'd like to see more information."

Training includes the use of sonar, which has been linked to whale strandings and perhaps injuries to whales' auditory systems – though strandings have not been reported in California waters. It also includes underwater explosives training.

The commission's staff had recommended accepting the plan if the Navy agreed to additional protections.

Navy officials told the commission they believed the protections they have already proposed, including spotters who would shut down training if marine mammals swam too close, were sufficient to make the training plan consistent with the California Coastal Act.

"The Navy believes our activities are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, without the inclusion of the staff-report conditions," said Alex Stone, the Navy's project manager for the Hawaii and Southern California environmental impact statement.

The vote came after hours of testimony dominated by opponents of the training – much of it focused on the Navy's estimate of nearly 9 million instances of disturbance to marine mammal behavior, nearly 1,700 injuries and about 130 deaths over the five-year period.

The Navy says those are conservative over-estimates, and that they would expect harmful effects to be far fewer.

"The Navy said they've been operating in Southern California for 40 years or so, and they haven't seen any harmful effects," said Michael Jasny, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's marine mammal protection program. "The problem with that assumption is the lack of any baseline data."

Others urged the panel to reject the Navy's plan, rather than simply request additional protections.

"Our final recommendation is to get an outright objection," said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. "Tell them they need to come back with something consistent with the science."

Navy officials could submit a new plan to the commission, or continue discussions, including through mediation, said Mark Delaplaine, a manager on the commission's staff.

Stone said he hoped the two sides would work out their differences, although the Commission's decision by itself would not bar the Navy from proceeding with the training.

"We want to reach an agreement," he said. "We don't want to just proceed over their objections."

A previous conflict led to court challenges by the Commission and the NRDC, then a preliminary injunction requiring additional protections from the Navy in 2008.

President George W. Bush granted an exemption for the training, and the injunction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Related Links

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.